Li6 Phonology and Morphology Representation of segments

Today’s topics feature geometry autosegments the skeleton

Fundamental points about FG All features are not created equal: certain sets of features pattern together, certain features never interact, and so on. Not all rule types allowed by the formal machinery of traditional linear phonology are attested/possible. Our hypothesis to account for these generalizations: features are organized in an invariant hierarchical tree structure provided by UG.

Traditional feature theory

Traditional segmental representation +coronal -voice -cont=/t/ +ant +dist

“Formal elegance” Consider the widespread phenomenon of nasal place assimilation. inept, impossible, incomplete How does a traditional linear model (i.e. pre- 1976) account for this process? Rules of this type (and in fact assimilation rules in general) have no special status in a linear model of phonology.

1. 1. Phonol. has only two basic operations at its disposal: spreading delinking Phonol. has only two basic constraints at its disposal: the Line-Crossing Constraint the OCP (Obligatory Contour Principle) Desiderata/postulates: common rule types involve simple machinery phonological rules perform single operations only feature organization is universally determined *XX | | [F] [F] A stronger hypothesis XX | [F] X | [F] *XX X | | [F] [F]

The Place Node Assume that assimilation and dissimilation/OCP, which are extremely common, operate only on single elements. If this is true, then natural classes (sets of sounds that pattern together with respect to phonological rules) should be reflected in representations. What implication does nasal place assimilation have for our representation of segments, then? It suggests that the places of articulation are grouped under a common node within the tree structure that makes up a segment. We call this particular node the Place node.Place node

The feature tree back to laryngeal neutralisation back to laryngeal neutralisation

Evidence for the Place node English nasal assimilation Sanskrit s-assimilation URSRgloss indras Suras indraS Suras Indra the hero tas ʂ a ʈ ta ʂ ʂ a ʈ those six divas putras diva  putrah son of the goddess nalas kāmam nalax kāmam at will

How do we represent Place assim? The Sanskrit case X | [+cons] [+cont] Place

Laryngeal spreading Laryngeal spreading Sanskrit coda neutralization (cf. Korean) nominativeaccusativegloss a. a. marutmarutamwind god b. b. suhrtsuhrdamfriend c. c. agnimatagnimat h amnear the fire d. d. kakupkakub h amregion

Laryngeal delinking: New Julfa future marker a. kERtHAm I will go k  tAm I will give k  kiEnAm I will exist b. g  b  z  Am I will buzz g  lAm I will cry g  z  rAm I will bray c. kH  tHo  niEm I will allow kH  tSHApHiEm I will measure kH  X  ndAm I will laugh kH  sAvoRiEm I will grow accustomed to d. gH  bHiERiEm I will carry gH  gHom I will come gH  dH  niEm I will put gH  dzHiEviEm I will form

Autosegments phonemes are not simply lists of feature specifications: features and segments are not necessarily in a one-to-one relationship (the relationship is nonlinear) individual features enjoy a certain amount of autonomy with respect to other features characterizing the segments to which they are associated (they behave as autosegments) Today we’ll focus on tone; vowel harmony in lecture 8 (round, back, and ATR as autosegments)

Typology of autosegmental relationships a.one to oneXX|F b.one to manyXX F c.many to oneXF d.bare anchorX e.floating featureF

1:1 and many:1 Margi (Kenstowicz 1994:312) base formdefinitegloss a.sálsál-árìman kùmkùm-árìmeat b.?ímí?ímy-árìwater kúkw-árìgoat tágútágw-árìhorse c.tìty- ǎ rìmorning hùhw- ǎ rìgrave ú?ùú?w- ǎ rìfire ´ = H ` = L ˆ = HL (= falling) ˇ = LH (=rising)

More Margi a.à sá g U  you go astray à tsú g U  you beat b.á wì g U  you run á dlà g U  you fall c.á v  l g U  you fly

1:many Margi (Kenstowicz 1994:319) Margi (Kenstowicz 1994:319) a. tSU speak tS í-bátell ghàreachghà-báreach f  swellf ì-bámake swell b.ságo astraysá-nálead astray dlàfalldlà-nàoverthrow bdl U  forgebdl  -ná forge

Universal Association Convention Match tones and tone-bearing units one-to-one, {L  R or R  L}.

R  L mapping: Kikuyu subject markerobject markerroottense suffix tò ‘we’mò ‘him’ròr ‘look at’íré má ‘they’má ‘them’tóm ‘send’ tò ròr ìrémá rór ìré tò mò ròr ìrémá mó ròr ìré tò mà rór ìrémá má rór ìré tò tòm írémá tóm íré tò mò tòm írémá mó tòm íré tò mà tóm írémá má tóm íré How do these forms illustrate the following? How do these forms illustrate the following? R  L mapping one-to-many association The OCP

Floating features Japanese mimetic palatalization palatalization targets the rightmost non-r coronal consonant If there are none, the palatalizing feature links to the leftmost segment URmimeticgloss a./dosa/doša-došain large amounts b./toko/ ‘trotting’čoko-čokochildish small steps c./poko/ ‘up and down movement’pyoko-pyoko (*pokyo) flip-flop, jumping around imprudently d./koro/kyoro-kyorolook around indeterminately

1:many pt 2: the skeleton Bakwiri syllable reversing language game (Hombert 1986) kwélì ‘falling’ → líkwè

Geminates Patient LB’s errors when spelling geminates (Caramazza and Miceli 1990) StimulusResponse pezzozeppo cellulaleccula bloccobcollo

Conclusions Nonlinear, autosegmental representation of segmental material enables us to account satisfyingly for a wide range of phenomena that would be difficult or impossible to account for with non-autonomous linear representations.